The assumptions underlying classical deterrence remain an underpinning of most legal systems. Although empirical research on deterrence is extensive, less investigated are the conditions under which deterrence is more or less likely to occur. The aim of this study is to analyze the influence of sanction severity and certainty on intentions to illegally download a film. A 3 × 4 factorial design was used in which three degrees of severity and 4° of certainty were combined. Results show that when low or medium certainty can be guaranteed, the degree of severity influences the intention to illegally download. However, severity is irrelevant when certainty is zero or total. These results suggest that severity is important, but its relevance is conditioned by the level of certainty.
Al-RafeeS.CronanT. P. (2006). Digital piracy: Factors that influence attitude toward behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 237–259.
2.
Al-RafeeS.RouibahK. (2010). The fight against digital piracy: An experiment. Telematics and Informatics, 27(3), 283–292.
3.
ApelR. (2013). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 67–101.
4.
ArnoldM.DarmonE.DejeanS.PenardT. (2014). Graduated response policy and the behavior of digital pirates: Evidence from the French three-strike (Hadopi) law (SSRN 2380522). SSRN.
5.
BeccariaC. (1764/2011). De los delitos y las penas. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
BosslerA. M. (2021). Perceived formal and informal sanctions in deterring cybercrime in a college sample. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(3), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862211001630
8.
Castro-ToledoF. J. (2021). Explorando los límites de la disuasión: Un meta-análisis doble sobre la influencia del castigo en el cumplimiento de las normas de propiedad intelectual en Internet. Indret, 2, 1–22.
9.
ChoudhuryP.YadavS. (2022). Online piracy and intellectual property laws: A synthesis. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 5, 2284–2295
10.
DepoorterB.Van HielA.VannesteS. (2011). Copyright backlash. Southern California Law Review, 84(6), 1251–1292.
11.
EdwardsT.BosslerA. (2019). Criminology’s contribution to the study of digital piracy. In BrownS. C.HoltT. J. (Eds.), Digital piracy. A global, multidisciplinary account (pp. 229–249). Routledge.
FeldmanY.NadlerJ. (2006). Expressive law and file sharing norms. San Diego Law Review, 43, 577–618.
14.
FeuerbachP. J. A. (1989). Tratado de derecho penal común vigente en Alemania. Hammurabi.
15.
Gómez-BellvísA. B. (2019). Crónica de una ineficacia anunciada: Un estudio sobre los factores asociados al cumplimiento en el ámbito de la propiedad intelectual. Indret, 1, 1–20.
16.
Gómez-BellvísA. B.Miró-LlinaresF. (2020). ¿Por qué descargamos contenidos sin autorización en Internet? Un estudio exploratorio de los factores asociados al incumplimiento en el ámbito de la propiedad intelectual en el ciberespacio. In SorianoO. Fuentes (dir.), Era digital, Sociedad y Derecho (pp. 601–613). Tirant lo Blanch.
17.
Gómez-BellvísA. B. (2022). The factual assumptions of general prevention: An empirical approach to the role of deterrence in the enunciation of criminal law [Doctoral dissertation]. Miguel Hernández University.
18.
GunterW. D. (2009). Internet scallywags: A comparative analysis of multiple forms and measurements of digital piracy. Western Criminology Review, 10, 15–28.
19.
HigginsG. E.WilsonA. L.FellB. D. (2005). An application of deterrence theory to software piracy. Journal of Criminal Justices and Popular Culture, 12, 166–184.
20.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2016). Crime sciences series: Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. Routledge.
21.
HoltT. J.CopesH. (2010). Transferring subcultural knowledge online: Practices and beliefs of persistent digital pirates. Deviant Behavior, 31, 625–654.
22.
JainS. (2008). Digital piracy: A competitive analysis. Marketing Science, 27(4), 610–626.
23.
JenningsK.BosslerA. M. (2019). Digital piracy. In HoltT.BosslerA. M. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan.
KariithiN. K. (2011). Is the devil in the data? A literature review of piracy around the world. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 14, 133–154.
26.
KigerlA. C. (2013). Infringing nations: Predicting software piracy rates, BitTorrent tracker hosting, and P2P file sharing client downloads between countries. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 7, 62–80.
27.
KosterA. (2012). Fighting internet piracy: The French experience with the Hadopi law. International Journal of Management & Information, 16(4), 327–330.
28.
LeeB.JeongS.PaekS. Y. (2019). Determinants of digital piracy using deterrence, social learning and neutralization perspectives. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(4), 295–308.
29.
LevinA. M.Dato-onM. C.Manolis (2007). Deterring illegal downloading: The effect of threat appeals, past behavior, subjective norms, and attributions of harm. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 6(2–3), 111–122.
30.
LoughranT. A.PaternosterR.PiqueroA. R.PogarskyG. (2011). On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: Implications for criminal decision making and deterrence. Criminology, 49(4), 1029–1061.
31.
LoughranT. A.PogarskyG.PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR. (2012). Re-examining the functional form of the certainty effect in deterrence theory. Justice Quarterly, 29(5), 712–741.
32.
LowryP. B.ZhangJ.WuT. (2017). Nature or nurture? A meta-analysis of the factors that maximize the prediction of digital piracy by using social cognitive theory as a framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 104–120.
33.
MaimonD. (2020). Deterrence in cyberspace: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical literature. In HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance (pp. 449–467). Springer International Publishing.
34.
NaginD. S. (1998). Deterrence and incapacitation. In TonryM. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 345–368). Oxford University Press.
35.
NaginD. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199–263.
36.
NaginD. S.CullenF. T.JonsonC. L. (2018). Deterrence, Choice, and Crime. Routledge.
37.
NaginD. S.PaternosterR. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467–496.
38.
NaginD. S.PaternosterR. (1994). Personal capital and social control: The deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology, 32(4), 581–606.
39.
NaginD. S.PogarskyG. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 32(4), 581–606.
40.
PaternosterR.PiqueroA. (1995). Reconceptualizing deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 251–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427895032003001
41.
PaternosterR. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100, 765.
42.
PaternosterR. (2018). Perceptual deterrence theory. In Deterrence, choice, and crime (pp. 81–106). Routledge.
43.
Pérez-DomínguezS.Castro-ToledoF. J.Miró-LlinaresF. (2019). Prevalencia, factores asociados y diferencias de género en el cumplimiento de la propiedad intelectual: una revisión sistemática. Revista Electrónica de Criminolobía, 2, 1–10.
44.
PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR. (1998). An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 3–39.
45.
PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR.PogarskyG.LoughranT. (2011). Elaborating individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 335–360.
46.
PiqueroA. R.PogarskyG. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(2), 153–186.
47.
PiqueroA. R.RengertG. F. (1999). Studying deterrence with active residential burglars. Justice Quarterly, 16(2), 451–471.
48.
PiqueroA. R.TibbettsS. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481–510.
49.
PiqueroN. L. (2005). Causes and prevention of intellectual property crime. Trends in Organized Crime, 8(4), 40–61.
50.
PiqueroN. L. (2011). Causes and prevention of intellectual property crime. In AlbaneseJ. S. (Ed.), Intellectual property theft and fraud. Combating piracy (pp. 45–72). Transaction Publishers.
51.
PiqueroN. L.KanvindeV.SandersW. (2020). Factorial surveys and crime vignettes. In van RooijB.SokolD. D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of compliance (pp. 773–779). Cambridge University Press.
52.
PogarskyG. (2002). Identifying ‘deterrable’ offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quaterly, 19, 431–453.
53.
PoortJ.QuintaisJ.van der EndeM. A.YagafarovaA.HageraatsM. (2018). Global online piracy study. Amsterdam Law School Research Paper, (2018–21).
54.
Rando-CasermeiroP. (2019). Disuasión y piratería. Indret, 3, 1–42.
55.
RyanC. L.LewisJ. M. (2017). Computer and internet use in the United States: 2015. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. US Census Bureau.
56.
SahniS. P.GuptaI. (2019). Piracy in the digital era. Springer.
57.
SherizenS. (1995). Can computer crime be deterred?Security Journal, 6(3), 177–181.
58.
SinhaR. K.MandelN. (2008). Preventing digital piracy music: The carrot or the stick?Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 1–15.
59.
StaffordM. C.WarrM. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002001
60.
SvenssonM.LarssonS. (2012). Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1147–1163.
61.
TassoneT. (2012). Mass file sharing lawsuits: Legalized extorsion or valid defense of copyright. Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet, 3(2), 331–364.
62.
TaylorS. A. (2012). Evaluating digital piracy intentions on behaviors. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(7), 472–483.
63.
UdrisR. (2016). Cyber deviance among adolescents and the role of family, school, and neighborhood: A cross-national study. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 10, 127–146.
64.
Van RooijB.FineA.ZhangY.WuY. (2017). Comparative compliance: Digital piracy, deterrence, social norms, and duty in China and the United States. Law & Policy, 39(1), 73–93.
WilhelmC. (2020). Investigating neutralization strategies in digital piracy: The role of content preferences and social norms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(2), 320–340.
67.
WingroveT.KorpasA. L.WeiszV. (2011). Why were millions of people not obeying the law? Motivational influences on non-compliance with the law in case of music piracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 261–276.
68.
WolfeS. E.HigginsG. E.MarcumC. D. (2008). Deterrence and digital piracy. A preliminary examination of the role of viruses. Social Science Computer Review, 26(3), 317–333.
69.
WrightB. R.CaspiA.MoffitT. E.PaternosterR. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(2), 180–213.
